Disable Smilies in This Post. Show Signature: include your profile signature. Only registered users may have signatures.

*If HTML and/or UBB Code are enabled, this means you can use HTML and/or UBB Code in your message.

If you have previously registered, but forgotten your password, click here.

T O P I C R E V I E W

Robert Pearlman

National Research Council (NRC) release

National Disagreement Over NASA's Goals and Objectives Detrimental to Agency Planning, Budgeting Efforts

Without a national consensus on strategic goals and objectives for NASA, the agency cannot be expected to establish or work toward achieving long-term priorities, says a new report from the National Research Council. In addition, there is a mismatch between the portfolio of programs and activities assigned to the agency and the budget allocated by Congress, and legislative restrictions inhibit NASA from more efficiently managing its personnel and infrastructure. The White House should take the lead in forging a new consensus on NASA's future in order to more closely align the agency's budget and objectives and remove restrictions impeding NASA's efficient operations.

"A current stated interim goal of NASA's human spaceflight program is to visit an asteroid by 2025," said Albert Carnesale, chancellor emeritus and professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who chaired the committee that wrote the report. "However, we've seen limited evidence that this has been widely accepted as a compelling destination by NASA's own work force, by the nation as a whole, or by the international community. The lack of national consensus on NASA's most publicly visible human spaceflight goal along with budget uncertainty has undermined the agency's ability to guide program planning and allocate funding."

The committee that authored the report was not asked to offer views on what NASA's goals, objectives, and strategy should be; rather it was tasked with recommending how these goals, objectives, and strategies might best be established and communicated.

The report recommends establishing a national consensus on NASA's future with the executive branch taking the lead after technical consultations with potential international partners. The strategic goals and objectives chosen should be ambitious yet technically rational and should focus on the long term, the report says.

To reduce the discrepancy between the overall size of NASA's budget and its current portfolio of missions, facilities, and personnel, the report says, the White House, Congress, and NASA, as appropriate, could pursue any or all of the following four options:

Institute an aggressive restructuring program to reduce infrastructure and personnel costs and improve efficiency;

Engage in and commit for the long term to more cost-sharing partnerships with other U.S. government agencies, private sector industries, and international partners;

Increase the size of the NASA budget;

Reduce considerably the size and scope of elements of NASA's current program portfolio to better fit the current and anticipated budget profile.

Regardless of the approach or approaches selected, the report recognizes that eliminating the mismatch will be difficult.[/LIST] Because future human spaceflight or large-scale Earth and space science projects will likely involve multiple nations, the U.S. should explore international approaches to such projects, the report says. To do so, the U.S. must have a program that other countries want to participate in and must be willing to give substantial responsibility to its partners. The U.S. must also demonstrate its reliability and attractiveness as an international partner.

The study was sponsored by NASA. The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council make up the National Academies. They are private, independent nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology, and health policy advice under a congressional charter. The Research Council is the principal operating agency of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering.

Lou Chinal

Let's visit the asteroid that's going to fly by us April 13th, 2029.

328KF

The typical politician in Washington would LOVE that option...push for a goal that's so far in the future he'll be out of office long before any real financial and political commitment is required.

I prefer the third option above: Increase the size of the NASA budget, once the clear goals are established. We have seen a pattern of starting over again and again, largely as the result of Washington's "that was the last guy's idea" mentality.

I think we're pretty far along the path of the second option. Unfortunately, we have seen several times (and are currently in the middle of such) how this ultimately leads to delays and cost increases.

I think that if such partnerships are pursued, they should be done from the outset, not once the hardware development is underway. After Bill Clinton intervened, ISS was delayed for years with the service module in the critical path and the Russians' internal financial and political issues.

We now wait on private industry to develop their manned systems while we pay tens of millions of dollars per seat to the Russians. It remains to be seen what might come of the ESA contribution to the Orion MPCV, and how much money that really saves in the long run with all of the issues that comes with international engineering projects.

Those four bullet points are laughingly obvious, given the amount of resources likely devoted to yet another study group in Washington.

Fra Mauro

Another report — yawn! I like option three plus skipping the asteroid mission. But I bet there is a crowd in D.C., and among the major newspapers that would love option four or maybe an option five — make NASA just a big R&D facility.